First, forgive me if this post brings back an idea that’s been floating around art talk for years. I didn’t see any evidence of that, but… one never knows, do one?
Anyway, I’ve been thinking about “friction” in the art-buying process, meaning: What causes people to hesitate when deciding to buy a work of art? What might even STOP them buying anything at all?
One thought is the scare word “commitment”, as in: “I better damn well like this thing 'cause I’m about to plunk down my money NOW, and I don’t know what I’m going to do with the piece if it bores me LATER.”
So, that thought led to another: What if we were to remove the feeling of having no options, as in: Oh, that painting doesn’t work for you anymore? No biggie. Just send it back and choose something else.
Well, isn’t that the way your local library works? You borrow a book, love it at first, but then – somewhere around Chapter 4 – you think: Uh, no. This story does not warm my butter. Then you bring it back and check out another book.
Now, I certainly don’t have all the angles worked out on such a program, but let me get you thinking: Let’s say DPW had a lending library, consisting entirely of 9x12 artworks; i.e., 2D pieces that would fit in a standard 9x12 frame, as well as fitting in a rigid cardboard mailing envelope for transport.
And let’s say that DPW had a fee of X dollars per year for the right to check out 4 pictures (or whatever number).
Well, that might be of interest to some art lovers out there! And what if someone loves a piece so much that he or she didn’t want to return it? The answer is: KACHING! The artist just made a sale.
Anyway, I’d be interested to read your thoughts. This idea may be the smartest or dumbest thing you’ve heard all week. Or maybe both!
Cheers from Houston,
Steve Kobb